Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Flight’s Universal Appeal

Thursday, December 11th, 2014

Richard L. Collins, possibly the most prolific and insightful of all General Aviation journalists, observed that our community spent inordinate attention on business uses of private aircraft when in fact flying was good fun and personally rewarding. While I would not be so bold as to speak for him, I suspect he would advocate that operating a GA aircraft for any purpose was an endeavor worth pursuing—provided we did so safely and with a modicum of proficiency.

Each person who flies has his or her own reasons for being an aviator. Freedom, control, participating in a unique activity that most people have not experienced, achieving the level of proficiency needed to be designated a “pilot”, seeing the world from a new perspective—all such attributes are worthy goals. Add to those motivations the ability to travel swiftly to interesting places, perhaps for business reasons or possibly just for fun, and I wonder why more people do not embrace General Aviation.

I contend that gaining what General Aviation can offer, and doing so with sufficient and justifiable confidence that a planned trip can be flown as scheduled, requires a significant level of knowledge and skill. Considerable time and attention is needed to achieve that competence, and far too many people decide that the gain of becoming a pilot is not worth the pain of becoming a pilot. Unfortunately, about 50 percent of individuals who demonstrate sufficient motivation to obtain a student certificate and invest in initial instruction, even to the level of flying solo, drop out before they become a Private Pilot. About half of newly certified Private Pilots do not fly more than about 100 hours total before they let their physical lapse, thereby becoming inactive. While cost is certainly a factor in the decision not to pursue flying, I contend it is not the prime cause of the dropout phenomena. There are other popular activities, hobbies and passions far more expensive than private flying.

Based upon the broad spectrum of responses to my November offering for AOPA’s Opinion Leaders blog (Let’s Use Drone Technology to Expand Business Aviation), the word drone excites many emotions. Drone technology—use of GPS to fly a precise course, and data link capabilities to monitor the vehicle’s operational health during all phases of flight—is sufficiently well known and reliable to be applied to General Aviation aircraft in such a manner that operating a GA aircraft could be significantly simpler and predictable. No, the advanced GA aircraft would not be a drone—it would require a certified pilot with a specified level of recent experience to be legal.

The aircraft’s design, however, would incorporate sufficient technology to reduce pilot workload, avoid other aircraft and always operate within the allowable flight envelope.

I contend that if GA aircraft were more “operator friendly”, more people would chose to operate GA aircraft—for pleasure, for business or preferably for both business and pleasure.

What is Business Aviation?

Friday, October 17th, 2014



Many opinion leaders prominently featured in media and other communication channels, including social networks, know very little about Business Aviation. In fact, the entire segment of we call General Aviation is a mystery to most of the public.


We define General Aviation by what it is not: It’s not the airlines, it’s not military aviation. Those broad classes of aviation are familiar to the public and easily identified.  GA is everything else.  Something is missing when we fail to identify General Aviation by its unique characteristics and benefits.


Residing under the wide umbrella of General Aviation is the segment we call Business Aviation. Little wonder that the use of general aviation aircraft for business transportation—i.e., Business Aviation—is not well understood. Consequently our community too often is the target for pejorative rhetoric by politicians as well as some who wish to stir discontent and envy between different economic strata.


Business Aviation is simply a highly useful and productive form of air transportation. It is not a substitute for the airlines. The use of business aircraft is complementary rather than competitive to scheduled air carriers, providing access to 10 times the number of airports that have any form of airline service and 100 times the locations with business-friendly schedules. Business Aviation provides access by air to locations the airlines do not serve and do not want to serve. Travel between many places in rural America and throughout the world is not economically viable for the scheduled air carriers.


Furthermore, Business Aviation itself is broad, encompassing aircraft of all types and sizes used in various applications ranging from owner-flown business trips to charter, fractional ownership and corporate flight operations.


Corporations and entrepreneurs need to travel. Even in this age of Internet and smartphones, nothing replaces the benefits of being face-to-face with clients and business partners. Thus when companies must position their people to various locations, they select the scheduled airlines when that form of transport provides the most cost-effective means of movement and Business Aviation when using a business aircraft provides a more productive use of travel time. Studies by leading research firms such as Harris Interactive show that business aircraft are highly effective in adding productivity to a business person’s travel time. Nearly 75 percent of passengers on company-owned aircraft are middle managers or technical specialists, not Mahogany Row types.


Thus it is understandable that member companies of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), the world’s most active users of business jets, spend billions of dollars annually on airline tickets. When Robert Crandall, at the time President and Chairman of America Airlines, was the keynote speaker at the NBAA’s 50th anniversary meeting, he said it was his pleasure to address his “best customers”.


On a recent trip to Washington, DC, I spent a few minutes at the National Air and Space Museum’s mall location. More than a decade ago, the NBAA sponsored an exhibit called “Business Wings” to provide a platform for expanding the public’s understanding of why companies use business aircraft. The program occupied a sizable portion of the westernmost wing of the first floor hall and was seem by over 2,000,000 visitors during its two year or so run at the museum. Some aspects of the display remained for several more years.


I was disappointed to find no reference to Business Aviation during my brief jaunt through the NASM’s location in the heart of our nation’s capital. I understand that there is reference to business aircraft at the Museum’s Hazy Center at Dulles, however. Educating the public and their opinion leaders is a practical necessity for obtaining legislation that assures access to airspace and airports for business aircraft as well as reasonable fees and taxes associated with Business Aviation. It is in our collective best interests as aviators with the knowledge and appreciation of all aspect of General Aviation to seize each opportunity to communicate the good news of our community.

Reflections on Being an Aviator

Friday, September 19th, 2014

Serious aviators share a common characteristic—their passion for flight. Whether he or she is a professional earning a living in Business Aviation or a private pilot enjoying the magnificent foliage of a fall weekend, aviators go aloft to experience something very special and fulfilling. Aviation is a meaningful motivator for their way of life. It is an expression of how they feel about themselves and about their confidence to perform. I know no one who became a professional pilot because their parents forced them into that career. Similarly, when asked why they earned a pilot’s certificate, most individuals say they always wanted to fly. Such is the magnetism of aviation.

Thomas Watson, Jr., CEO of International Business Machines from 1956 until retiring in 1971 on his doctor’s advice following a heart attack, reflected the role that aviation can play in a person’s life. From his first solo (which he proudly noted in his autobiography Father, Son & Co. that he accomplished after only 5.5 hours of instruction) until his death in 1993, he maintained a passionate attraction to flight.

In 1977 I met Mr. Watson at Norwood Memorial Airport, a few miles southwest of Boston, Massachusetts, where he had just completed his first solo flight in a Bell Jet Ranger. After being introduced and photographing him flying the helicopter, I boarded his North American Sabreliner and watched him pilot (as captain) the business jet to Knox County Regional Airport, about 85 miles north of Portland, Maine, where he was the principal benefactor of the Owls Head Transportation Museum. There he parked his business jet, donned goggles and cloth flying helmet and took off in a restored Newport WWI fighter. After a few low passes, he landed and proceeded to get into a beautifully rebuilt Spad, also a survivor of the Great War, and piloted the aircraft through its paces. After lunching on Maine lobster, he mounted a Spitfire for a dust-up of the field. That sortie complete, Mr. Watson excused himself, boarded his Sabreliner and flew back to his home north of New York City.

Piloting sophisticated aircraft was nothing new to Thomas Watson, Jr. Since his days as a student at Brown University, to being commissioned as a second lieutenant in the 102nd Observation Squadron of the New York National Guard (an assignment he sought when he learned that a civilian pilot with more than 300 hours of flight time could be designated a pilot without going through Army Air Corp training), to his 2,500 hours flying a Consolidated B-24 throughout WWII as personal pilot for General Follett Bradley, to being checked out the IBM’s business jets, Watson was the consummate aviator.

During lunch at the Owls Head Museum, I asked Mr. Watson why he devoted his time and resources to the preservation of old aircraft. His response was simple: He owned his carrier at IBM to aviation.

Claiming to be a mediocre student and lacking experience in business, he said the only endeavor where he felt successful was flying. In fact, as WWII was concluding, Watson lined up a piloting job with United Airlines. Discussing his post-war plans to join the airlines with General Bradley, his war-time boss’s response was “Really? I always thought you’d go back and run the IBM company.”

Mr. Watson said he had no sinecure at IBM. His father owned too few shares at the company to dictate who would succeed him. Thus he responded with a question. “General Bradley, do you really think I could run IBM?”

“Of course”, was the General’s response.

Mr. Watson said General Bradley’s answer, so positive, provoked his introspection. He had accomplished many challenging tasks while serving as the General’s pilot. Yes, he thought, I can take on unknowns and be successful. Without the confidence that being an aviator installed within him, he said he would not have gone to IBM. He felt he owed his career to aviation.

As a footnote to this blog, Mr. Watson told me not to relate our conversation in the publication that had asked me to meet him on that date in 1977. Subsequently the reason for his command was clear: Thomas Watson, Jr. recounted his discussion with Follett Bradley in Father, Son & Co., published first in 1990.


Friday, September 19th, 2014
Complaint to Mandate

Complaint to Mandate

I was listening to NPR on the commute home from work a few weeks ago. The commentator was talking about complaints. She had a rather novel idea. Listen to yourself and hear what you complain about most. Take that item and commit yourself to becoming part of the solution.

What if we, as aviation lovers and airport protectors, took a self-inventory and came up with our biggest gripe? You know, the thing that we are most sarcastic about. The phrase we mutter under our breath at the airport board meeting, or the gas pump, or while watching the nightly news coverage of an aircraft accident.

I envisioned a complaint box that took in the complaint and shot a MANDATE out of the bottom. Sort of like the cost of the complaint is the requirement that you expend energy becoming part of the fix.

I tell you, I have the best friends and acquaintances in aviation. A quick query of a dozen or so Facebook friends yielded me an honest list of their biggest complaints. They ranged from the high cost of becoming a pilot, to lack of community awareness of the value of an airport, to 3rd class medicals and the price of fuel. But you know what was top on the hit parade? Dum dum dum dum….TSA. So I am going to follow my own advice and tell you a bit about some folks who went from complaint to mandate to success with TSA Directive 1542-04-08G.

I am a pretty lucky girl.  My husband, Mitch Latting is not only a Mooney pilot and GA advocate, but has become passionate about fighting the over-reach of the TSA directive.  I was able to interview him over dinner last week.  “Over 400 airports across the country that provide commercial air service have been negatively affected by TSA Security Directive 1542-04-08G” he says.   We both noticed implementation of SD-08G at our Santa Maria [KSMX] and San Luis Obispo [KSBP] CA airports was overly exaggerated by the airport managers, making the entire airport the Airport Operations Area [AOA], thereby imprisoning General Aviation, including businesses, museums, restaurants and hangar tenants.

Mitch reports “TSA’s own written material recognizes that treating General Aviation areas as if they are Security Identification Display Areas [SIDA] causes a hardship to General Aviation.  TSA actually recommends physical separation of the two areas.”

TSA Card needed to get to GA Hangars

TSA Card needed to get to GA Hangars

With this over zealous grab at both Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo airports, pedestrian gate access codes have all been removed.  Once you leave the airport, you cannot return to your airplane unless you have an airport specific TSA [FBI background check, annual fee] approved access badge, or you have the cocktail waitress at the local restaurant let you back into the airport.  If you return late at night to get to your airplane and your cocktail waitress has gone home, or your local FBO is closed, you are quite out of luck.  Well, if you’re willing to pay an exorbitant fee, you can call the FBO to come out and let you in, or you can call the airport administration office and hope someone will respond.

At our airport, you cannot drive your car to your private aircraft hangar unless you flash your TSA airport specific badge at the kiosk located at each vehicle gate, which is monitored by overhead video cameras.  Once through the gate, you are required to stop, blocking all other vehicles or persons from entering or leaving until the gate is fully closed, lest you are subjected to a $25,000.00 fine.  If you want to drive out of the airport later after your flight, you won’t be able to unless you flash your TSA badge at the inner kiosk.

SIDA Gate around GA Hangars

SIDA Gate around GA Hangars

Now, here’s someone who took the mandate!  On behalf of their General Aviation airport, Colorado Grand Junction [KGJT] pilots Steve Wood and Dave Shepard formed Grand Junction Airport Users and Tenants Association (GJAUTA].  This group went into battle a few years ago, with the intent of returning reasonable freedoms to General Aviation.  It’s been a long hard fight, but they won!  A main effort of GJAUTA was to separate the SIDA from the AOA area, while keeping general aviation [including hangars, museums, and businesses] outside the AOA.  Gone are the highly restrictive and unnecessary TSA restrictions upon Grand Junction Airports General Aviation.

With their tremendous efforts, freedom fighters Steve and Dave were awarded AOPA’s annual Laurence P. Sharples Perpetual Award.  The award is presented to those who have made the most significant contributions to the advancement of General Aviation.

Think about what you complain about in regard to aviation or airports. Be honest. Then change that complaint into a mandate. Mandate is an action word. If you don’t have enough activities at your airport, plan one. Not enough speakers in your community to promote aviation? Be one. For me? I am going to be part of the solution at KSMX and KSBP and to push back those barbed wire fences and cameras where they belong. Mandate-ON!

Commercial Certificate Not Required–Concluding Thoughts

Friday, August 22nd, 2014


Commercial Certificate Not Required—Part 1 and Part 2 generated a number of meaningful responses from aviators who believe that employees should be allowed to fly their personal aircraft, or a rental, on company business and be reimbursed as is routinely done with employees using their personal car.  For example, we know of no company that prohibits its employees from using a rental car on company business. Why should employees be prevented or effectively discouraged from using a rented aircraft? In terms of material loss, insurance is available that adequately protects shareholders from claims that might arise should there be a mishap. As mentioned by one responder to the referenced blogs, aviation accidents often prompt claimants to call for excessive judgments. So do bad auto accidents. A company can be well protected by liability coverage coupled with good legal defense whether the case involves aircraft or automobiles.

One respondent took me to task for not addressing employee-flown travel more aggressively during the 11 plus years that I was president of the National Business Aviation Associations between 1992 and 2003. He has a point, although in NBAA’s No Plane No Gain advocacy program launched in the early 1990s we occasionally featured an entrepreneur using his own aircraft in the furtherance of business activities. The Association (which was conceived to represent corporations that use GA aircraft flown by salaried crews for business transportation) did encourage me to use my B-55 Baron for business, provided I carried adequate liability insurance, named the NBAA as an additional insured and took yearly recurrent training. While we promoted the advantage of General Aviation aircraft for business travel, perhaps I could have been more assertive on behalf of employee pilots.

Several readers noted that companies carry umbrella policies. What many respondents failed to emphasize, however, was the availability of policies with very high liability limits. Protection in the hundreds of millions of dollars is not excessively expensive. Fear of being sued out of existence is unrealistic and not a reason to prohibit the use of personal aircraft for company business.

The comments that resonated most with me were written by readers who lamented how little business managers and the public (including most of the people who serve on juries) know about the benefits of Business Aviation—the use of General Aviation aircraft for business transportation. When we dig down deeply into the challenges faced by General Aviation in all its forms and manifestations, we find that unfamiliarity generates a lack of acceptance, which in turn leads to companies refusing to look at personal aircraft in the same way they consider personal automobiles.

Our Associations such as AOPA do yeomen’s work promoting the benefits of flight, improving the skills of aviators and representing us before government. But the organizations that speak on our behalf in DC and elsewhere need the help of everyone who understands and appreciates the benefits of being a pilot. Each of us must use his or her knowledge of General Aviation to spread the good news of our community. Perhaps we should encourage the formation of a special committee or task force to break down the barriers preventing the use of personal aircraft for employee travel.

Regulations Are Written In Blood: Why Planesharing Is Grounded For Now

Thursday, August 7th, 2014


planesharing is grounded until further notice

In aviation, we say that “regulations are written in blood.” Pilots often complain about regulations, but they generally recognize that those regulations are often based on experience and events that have cost others their property, their lives, or both. We know that the legal environment of aviation often lags behind reality. Technical innovations can make older regulations obsolete. But sometimes the innovation doesn’t change the relevance of the regulations or dilute the blood in which they are written.

Planesharing Explained

Laws should serve as a safety net, not a noose. Aircraft are expensive to own and operate. Now, more than ever, making aircraft more useful and ubiquitous is critical for the survival of aviation. Uber, Lyft, AirBnB, VBRO, GetAround, and BoatBound make it easy to put substantial assets like cars, boats, and homes to work. There is no federal statute that makes renting out your spare bedroom generally illegal.

“Planesharing” tries to apply the same model to private air travel. Planesharing is the concept of pilots use services on the Internet to post details of their upcoming flights in the hopes that potential passengers will find the flight information, join the pilots on their flights, and split the cost of the flight with them.

Startups like Flytenow, AirPooler, ShareMySky, AiirShare, Pro Rata Share, Wingman, and others have developed business models around facilitating planesharing. Venture capital should not be seen as some kind of signal that startups can ignore the rules the rest of us have to live by.

Pilots have been legally sharing the costs of privately operated flights for decades, but purpose-built online apps like these have made this kind of sharing more like commercial flying.

How Private and Commercial Flying are Different

It is sometimes said that the most dangerous part of a flight is the drive to the airport. That’s true, but only if you’re flying with a commercial operation. Airline (Part 121) and charter (Part 135) flying is something like 500 times safer than operations conducted by private pilots (generally conducted under Part 91). There’s good reason for this. Airlines and charter operators have to achieve rigorous certification of their aircraft, facilities, operations, and pilots and maintain that certification through constant monitoring, training, and investment. If you look at the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) in printed form, the requirements take up about an inch of thickness and that’s just the regulations themselves. Aircraft inspections happen at least every 100 hours of operating time. Operating specifications, maintenance records, pilot manuals, maintenance manuals, dispatcher manuals, and other necessary paperwork fills many linear feet of shelf space. Pilot experience could be as low as 250 or so hours, but most pilots flying for commercial operations have thousands.

Private operations, (under Part 91) on the other hand, don’t have to do as much. They’re subject to maybe a half inch of regulations and a few operating manuals. Private pilots might have as little as 50 hours of flight time. A mechanic may only be required to even touch the aircraft once a year.

It’s reasonable to accept more risk when flying with a private individual vs. a commercial operator. Flying a helicopter in combat has a lower accident rate than flying single piston engine airplanes. Remember folks, flying isn’t necessarily dangerous, but it is terribly unforgiving.

The Regulations and How Planesharing Gets Pilots In Trouble

This difference is the basis for the different FAA regulations for commercial and private operations. The regulation that applies to private pilots (FAR 61.133) says that “no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.” That same regulation goes on to say that “a private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.”

Planesharing depends on the “pro rata share” part of the regulation. As long as a private pilot operating under Part 91 collects only part of the money for the flight, he or she is in the clear, right? But let’s be honest. Privately this easy, and only when you start fishing about for people we have no prior relationship with do any of these new apps make anything easier. Blurring the lines between private and commercial flying is a problem. The confusion is in the uninitiated passenger believing that he or she is getting the commercial level of safety when the pilot is operating under the much more permissive rules of Part 91.

So the FAA typically applies a two-part litmus test.

1. Is the pilot “holding out” the service to the public? Put another way: How much does an operation look like an airline or charter service? FAA Advisory Circular AC-120-42 says that one becomes “a common carrier [i.e., an operation that requires the more rigorous certification] when it holds itself out or to a segment of the public as willing to furnish transportation within the limits of its facilities to any person who wants it.” What does a planesharing pilot do? Lists his or her flight and invites anyone with money to come sit in one of the other seats, right? Short of the person being overweight for the aircraft or being disagreeable in some way, a planesharing pilot is offering to furnish transportation to all comers.

2. Do the pilot and the passenger(s) have “common purpose” for the flight? The regulations (and all FAA guidance and rulings to date) clearly contemplate friends or family loading into a Cessna 172 and flying somewhere for dinner or sightseeing. The FAA requires that everyone in the aircraft have something in common about the mission. Planesharing encourages passengers who have no preexisting relationship with the pilot (otherwise, why is an online service necessary for them to find each other?) and it is almost certain that the pilot and passengers will have different objectives once they arrive at the destination. What are the chances that perfect strangers will turn out to be heading to the same golf course, restaurant, or shopping district? Even local flights which start and end at the same airport, which the FAA regulates as sightseeing flights are regulated. Air tour pilots are required to keep within a limited distance from the airport, submit to more drug tests, and hold at least a commercial pilot certificate.

It is possible to engage in planesharing in a compliant way. You build a group of friends over time, say on Pilots of America or a similar message board. You all agree to meet at a regional airport and fly in Bob’s Cessna 206 down to Sun ‘N Fun in Florida in March for three days to see the airshow and drool on the latest aircraft. You split the cost when it’s all over. Great.

But, if we’re being honest with ourselves, does anyone really think that many planesharing flights would work this way? A majority of them? Fewer? Any? The FAA administrator and staff are reasonably intelligent. The FAA can identify a sham when the FAA sees a sham and so can we. We need to be honest with ourselves and admit that most flights under the planesharing model are not legal under the current regulations. The arguments made by these companies that the rules don’t apply to them just don’t hold water.

Could the FAA come up with a safe harbor under the rule? Sure. What would that look like? A demonstrable pre-existing relationship between the pilot and passengers of at least such-and-such a duration, supported by family relationship or documentary evidence like date-stamped e-mail correspondence? A requirement that pilot and passengers all do the same thing at the destination, supported by a file folder full of consecutively-numbered concert tickets or a guest check with the appropriate number of entrees?

At what point do the administrative costs outweigh the benefit of such a safe harbor? It’s complicated. Previous legal interpretations from the FAA like here and here make this clear as mud. Creating a safe harbor under current regulation would be really tough. We’ve got to balance personal choice with public expectations of safety.

Anyway, we’re going to find out soon.  At least AirPooler and FlyteNow have petitioned the FAA for an administrative ruling about the legality of planesharing. The FAA told the pilot community that it would rule by mid-June, but that deadline has come and gone while the FAA continues to think about the issue. In the meantime, good on AirPooler for recently advising pilots to hold off on listing flights pending the FAA’s ruling. My opinion doesn’t really count for much. The ball is in the FAA’s court. Enforcement actions are possible and even likely before the smoke clears.

Why So Serious?

If you’ve read this far, you might wonder why I’m disparaging a potentially helpful and cool new aspect of the sharing economy. I love innovation and new ideas as much as anyone. I have a dog in this fight. But it’s a different dog and I’ve defined the fight for what I believe is a better way.

For aviation, collaborative consumption isn’t anything new. We’ve been buying and leasing back airplanes to flight schools and flying clubs for decades. The rest of the world was just catching up with us. There’s still plenty of room for innovation in the business of aviation. Two of my favorite examples are ForeFlight and SurfAir. They’ve disrupted the experience, without ignoring the rules.

Regulation and innovation can coexist. My own example is OpenAirplane which tackles the problem that we can solve legally by making more aircraft accessible to more pilots. The idea is to make everyone’s pilot certificate more useful.

In a nutshell: It used to be that each airplane rental operation (and its insurance company) required that a pilot do a local checkout flight in the airplane before renting it. OpenAirplane standardized the checkout process and with support of insurance industry. Now, pilots go through a single annual checkout flight that tests their skills and verifies that they are as safe and competent as the FAA requires. The standards are pretty much the same ones that the FAA uses when initially certifying pilots and they’re evaluated by designated flight instructors who are familiar with the process. After that Universal Pilot Checkout, the pilot can rent the same kind(s) or airplane(s) at any participating facility (currently more than 60 across the US). It’s all completely legal.

While planesharing could expand the addressable market for our company, we’re not willing to put pilots at risk of violations or worse. OpenAirplane solves as much of the problem as we can solve without breaking the law. We put more pilots in more airplanes more often. We don’t do anything for non-pilot passengers yet, but only because – well – illegal.

But we still frequently get lumped in with planesharing operators when folks talk about developments in aircraft availability. We’re not a planesharing operation. And we don’t want to be unless he rules change. Planesharing can’t solve the problem that it claims to solve without a deregulation of private aviation or a big shift in FAA doctrine.

You Can’t Fool Newton and Bernoulli

The principles defined by Isaac Newton and Daniel Bernoulli govern the safety of flight. They don’t care about social networks or online collaboration, no matter how innovative or cute. And mountains of evidence tell us that Newton and Bernoulli favor the better-maintained aircraft, better-trained pilots, and more comprehensive operating procedures that one finds almost exclusively in commercial operations. As long as the safety of passengers – or at least honesty with passengers about the wildly different risk profile that they face in an aircraft with the average a planesharing pilot – is the point, planesharing doesn’t work.

The FAA regulations allocate privileges to pilots based on a careful balancing of those privileges with the skills and experience that they have demonstrated. Planesharing, as currently conceived and practiced, encourages private pilots to operate de facto charter services or air carriers. It’s a bad idea. Unless the FAA reverses its position, planesharing remains grounded.

Coming Together, we can do big things and small things

Saturday, July 26th, 2014

As I type my husband and I are en route to Oshkosh for AirVenture 2014.

On the first day, after having flown 5.5 hours, we landed in Dumas, Texas  at Moore County Airport[KDUX]. What a sweet airport. A nice young man driving a golf cart who called me Ma’am greeted us. Quickly after that Brandon Cox, the airport manager, arrived to help us pump gas. He asked if we would like to go into town. When I said that we would, he said, “We can take care of you.” Brandon gave us the keys to a nice sedan with no form to fill out, and no questions asked. This is one of the small things I love about G.A.

Shortly before we left California’s Central Coast a group of 20 or so volunteers helped to help get New Cuyama Airport [L88] re-opened after having fallen into disrepair. The workers painted, raked, removed weeds, and filled cracks in the asphalt. Although there is still some work to do, it is amazing what big things a group of spirited volunteers can do when working together.

On the second big travel day we stopped in Poplar Grove, Illinois [C77]. This is place is an aviator’s paradise. Tina Thomas of Poplar Grove Airmotive warmly greeted us.

Golf cart ride around C77

Golf cart ride around C77

Shortly after that future aviatrix, Makayla gave us a complete tour of the airport, Vintage Wings & Wheels Museum and environs. In addition to being an accomplished tour-guide and golf cart driver, 8-year-old Makayla really was an ambassador for her home airport. She told us who lived where, what they flew or drove, or what kind of dog they had. She says that she wants to be a pilot, and I believe she will do it.

Mikayla doing the Jeppesen

Mikayla doing the “Jeppesen”

Inside the museum Judi Zangs the general manager met us. She explained that the idea of wings and wheels was a walk back in time to the airfields and roadways of history and to share America’s love for the automobile and airplane.

When we arrived back at the FBO Tina had found a place for us to hangar the Mooney for the overnight and offered to take us into town and pick us up in the morning. The sort of warm hospitality shown us at Poplar Grove is another example of how we can all do large and small things to inspire flight and protect airports.

Now we look forward to a short 45-minute Mooney flight into OSH14. Attending Oshkosh is a treat for every aviation lover. But it is also a wonderful networking opportunity for those of us working in GA advocacy and airport protection. There are always so many things to do at AirVenture.

I am particularly intrigued by Dan Pimentel’s Airplanista blog and #Oshbash event that I will be attending.   In speaking with Dan, he says that, “The annual #Oshbash event primarily a meet up for #avgeeks that live on Twitter. It’s a chance for tweeps on there to put faces with names.” The program for #Oshbash 2014 is the GA Power Collective, a panel discussion featuring seven influential representatives from the major aviation associations and organizations. He says, “I had written an article on my blog in December, 2013 stating that my “Christmas wish for aviation” was to grow the pilot population to 1,000,000 certificated pilots…from the current number of approximately 552,000. My article said that the major associations need to stop working in silos and begin working together…as a collective…to develop one winning strategy to stimulate growth in the pilot community. It is clear that what we have now is not working. This must change if general aviation wants to have a future.” The discussion will be moderated by Pimentel. Panelists include: Frank Ayers Jr. Chancellor, Prescott Campus Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Dick Knapinski, Senior Communications Advisor, EAA, Dr. Peggy Chabrian, President, Women in Aviation International, Brittney Miculka, Director of Outreach, AOPA, Dan Johnson President, Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association, Martha Phillips President, The Ninety Nines and Kathryn Fraser Director of Safety & Outreach, General Aviation Manufacturers Association. Personally I am anxious hear this lively discussion.

We simply cannot wait for a state or national aviation group to rescue our airport, be an ambassador for aviation, or provide a friendly face to our community. We have to do that for ourselves. We all must work together toward building the pilot population, preserving the pilots we do have, and protecting our airports.

I cannot wait to see all my “G.A. family” at Oshkosh. However it is a working vacation for me. At the end of the six days I will be tired, but it will be a happy tired.

Commercial Certificate Not Required—Part 2

Friday, July 25th, 2014


Responders to last month’s blog in this space noted that companies often prohibit the use of personal aircraft by employees for business transportation. Other readers lamented that many employers allowing the use of a GA aircraft on company travel establish policies that are so restrictive that few private pilots can comply. In my opinion, outright bans as well as nearly impossible provisions that are de facto rejections of employee use of owned or rented aircraft for business travel simply reflect an uninformed bias against an efficient and safe form of travel.


Employees who have demonstrated their proficiency by earning a Private Pilot’s certificate with an instrument rating should be allowed to conduct business travel just as they are allowed to use their personal car for such trips. Use of employee-owned or rented aircraft increases employee productivity, provides more efficient use of travel time compared with use of a personal car, and is not a risk to shareholders or private owners of the company. Furthermore, such travel is safe.


The argument about which form of travel—via car or private aircraft—is safer need not be debated in this forum. Personally, I prefer to travel via GA.   As pilot–in-command, I have more control over my response to factors influencing safety, such as unacceptable weather conditions or personal fatigue or the actions of third parties. I suspect that I am far more likely to overestimate my ability to deal with challenging safety factors when travel by car than by an aircraft I am piloting. Also, the probability of being the victim of another person’s error is significantly less when flying my own aircraft than when driving my own or a rented car.


Good governance demands that Boards establish travel policies, and efficient governance dictates that all forms of travel, including use of personal aircraft, should be allowed. Motivation for such a policy should be obtaining the maximum productivity from employees and time—not protection against travel-related mishaps. Companies simply do not have the ability to assure that an employee will follow procedure. Nor will an injured party be discouraged from pursuing the deep pockets of the employer should there be a mishap, regardless of what policies are in-place.


All companies, public or private, should obtain liability coverage to protect the firm from errors made by employees and by unaffiliated third parties. For example, a company is well advised to have non- owner liability insurance for car and aircraft. Having a policy prohibiting an employee from traveling on company business in his or her car or aircraft is not sufficient protection should there be an accident.


A company might require employees using a personal aircraft on business to carry a certain level of liability insurance and name the employer as an additional insured. But company-imposed limits should be reasonable. Surprisingly, such liability coverage is not prohibitively expensive.


There is no rational excuse for refusing to treat a personal aircraft for business travel differently from using a personal car. Requiring ground travel when a private aircraft is available is simply a waste of time and an example of poor management.

Commercial Certificate Not Required

Friday, June 27th, 2014


What pops into your mind when you hear the words Business Aviation? Salaried pilots flying corporate jets?  Transportation for big shots? While I doubt my definition is documented in the Federal Aviation Regulations, I think of Business Aviation as the use of a General Aviation aircraft for business transportation. (So does the National Business Aviation Association.) When I flew my B-55 Baron maintained in accordance with FAR Part 91 to see clients or attend business meetings, I was truly engaged in Business Aviation regardless of the certificates I held at the time. Any pilot desiring to travel for reasons of personal business can use any aircraft for which he or she is qualified to fly. A commercial certificate is not required provided the flight is neither for compensation or hire.


General Aviation, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, encompasses all flights that are not conducted by either Scheduled Airlines or the Military. Thus a salesperson with a private pilot certificate using his or her rented or owned aircraft to contact clients is truly engaged in Business Aviation.


The benefits of using a private aircraft for business travel are significant. If you have not considered this form of transportation, you should regardless of the type of aircraft you operate or the pilot certificate you hold.


The business man or woman who flies a GA aircraft has access to about 10 times the airports with any Scheduled Airline service and nearly 100 times the locations with frequent flights. About 50 airports in the USA account for nearly 80 percent of all passenger enplanements, which means that it is often difficult to find a scheduled flight that serves a business person’s transportation needs in a timely and efficient fashion.   In many situations, the nearest airport with Scheduled Airline service is many miles from the intended business meeting.


With the Scheduled Airlines participating in a practice called “Capacity Discipline”, fewer airline flights are available. Departures from major hubs since 2007 have been reduced by nearly nine percent. Flights from second and third tier airports are fewer by about 20 percent. Overall, domestic departures by Scheduled Airlines were down by 14.4 percent between 2007 and 2012. Thus the advantages of using General Aviation aircraft for business travel increase yearly.


A private pilot using a GA aircraft for business travel must understand what constitutes compensation, however. The federal government regards receipt of anything valuable in return for providing air transportation as being compensated. Thus a company that allows an employee to be paid for miles of travel, such as receiving a mileage allowance as if driving his or her personal car, might be deemed as being compensated. On the other hand, a private pilot is allowed to share operating expenses with passengers provided he or she pays a pro rate portion of the cost of fuel, oil, airport expenditures and rental fees. Maintenance, financing and capital costs, however, cannot be included in the assessment of operating costs when sharing expenses with a passenger.


Furthermore, flights flown by a private pilot must be incidental to his or her business or employment. For example, a person engaged in aerial photography would require a commercial certificate to pilot the camera aircraft; a person employed with a pipeline company would need a commercial certificate to fly pipeline patrol.


Check with your tax advisor or with the AOPA regarding how you should account for the cost of business travel in your own or rented aircraft. Also consult with your broker regarding any limitations imposed by your insurance carrier.


An additional caveat: While a commercial certificate is not necessary, holding a current instrument rating and being proficient flying in IMC is a practical necessity for any aviator contemplating the use of a GA aircraft for business travel.

Why Returning To The “Golden Age of Aviation” Is A Terrible Future

Monday, June 16th, 2014


Here’s a Private Pilot, circa 1930. (photo credit: James Crookall)

I’m not a big fan of nostalgia. Here’s why:

The Golden Age of Aviation” was a time when the only people who flew themselves in an airplane were titans of industry, movie stars, or crazy people.

The aviation industry is on course to revert back to the 1930′s. This is bad, bad, news, because if you look at what aviation was like back between the world wars, it was a terrible time.

Folks in our community complain about how private aviation is circling the drain, that it’s a lost cause. I refuse to believe that. We just have too many things going for us. I believe the future of private aviation is viable, as long as we stop trying to relive the past.

The first few chapters of the book, “Free Flight,” by James Fallows, pretty much lit my brain on fire. It remains one of the best, most objective, primers on the state of aviation in America. The rest of the book focuses on the trajectory of both Cirrus and Eclipse and their attempts to disrupt and reinvent air travel in the last decade.

Fallows nails it when he explains that there are two kinds of people. There are “the Enthusiasts,” (You, me, and most anyone reading this.) and “the Civilians.” (everyone else.)

On Enthusiasts
“…The typical gathering of pilots is like a RV or hot rod–enthusiasts’s club. People have grease under their fingernails. The aircraft business is littered with stories of start-up companies that failed. One important reason is that, as with wineries or small country inns or literary magazines, people have tried to start businesses because they loved the activity, not because they necessarily had a good business plan.”

On Civilians
“Civilians–mean most of the rest of us– view airplanes not as fascinating objects but as transportation. Planes are better than cars, buses, or trains to the extent that they are faster. Over the last generation, most civilians have learned to assume that large airliners nearly always take off and land safely. …From the civilian perspective, the bigger the plane, the better. Most civilians view people who fly small planes the way I view people who bungee-jump or climb Mount Everest; they are nuts.”

James Fallows, “Free Flight, Inventing the future of Travel

Fallows calmly explains how travel for most of us has gotten worse, not better in the last 30 years. He stresses that the hub and spoke system adopted by the airlines post deregulation has contributed to the misery. He cites former NASA administrator Daniel Golden, who noted in 1998 that the average speed door to door traveling on commercial airlines had sunk to only around fifty or sixty miles an hour.

The book concisely charts how we got into this fine mess. He compares how air travel works today to that of the world before automobiles. In the last generation, the airlines have benefited the most from investment in development and infrastructure. Today we pack most people onto what may as well be very fast train lines that go from major metro to major metro. Cornelius Vanderbilt would be so proud.

The other side of the coin is what General Aviation has evolved to for the folks who have the means to fly private jets. The industry has done a fabulous job of responding to the needs of the very small percentage of us who can afford to operate or charter turbine aircraft. This equipment flies higher and faster than most airliners, and can get people to small airports much closer to almost any destination. Fallows shows how this is analogous to travel by limousine. Remember, when cars first appeared on the road, they were considered too complicated and too dangerous for mere mortals to operate. Anyone who could afford one, hired a professional driver. I’m sure Andrew Carnegie was chauffeured from point to point too.

So for the most part, we have trains and limousines. It’s like some bizarre alternate history world where Henry Ford never brought us the automobile.

I refuse to believe that we’re simply on the wrong side of history here.

It’s actually a pretty great time to be a pilot. The equipment has never been more reliable, the tools keep making it easier, and the value proposition keeps getting more compelling compared to other modes of travel when you note that moving about the country on the airlines or the highways keeps slowing down due to congestion. For the first time in history, for most of us the country is no longer growing smaller. It’s getting bigger.

A few examples of what excites me about the future of aviation, and what I hope can prove to be disrupters looking forward…

  • ICON A5 – A 2 seat jet ski with wings that you can tow behind your pickup.
  • Cirrus Vision SF50 – 5 Seats, single jet engine, it’s going to define a completely new category for very light jets. I imagine it to be like a Tesla and an iPad mashed together in one 300 knot machine.
  • Whatever it is that Elon Musk builds next – please, please, please, let it be a flying car.

The future is bright, as long as we don’t go backwards.